All Forum Comments
Comment by Don posted on K5 Sensor Issues... at 26/01/2011 - 16:56
their new mag reviews the kr!
Comment by Don posted on K5 Sensor Issues... at 26/01/2011 - 15:34
k1000- highschool photography club.... Joined the club but had all extra curricular activities suspended due to poor grades. I was dyslexic and couldn't read teachers handwriting so I never bothered taking notes. They kicked me off track and feild, football team, yearbook staff photographer. I am the only student in that schools history that ever scored 100% on 7 out of 8 final exams. Barely passed math due to discalculia. Failed every single course...due to poor attitude and written homework and note books not completed.I had two pages worth of notes for the entire year...lol..
k1000- a few years later, bought it used. started my own wedding photography business within six months.
k1000- a few years later, bought it used. started my own wedding photography business within six months.
Comment by Don posted on First Steps and The Clincher in Photography at 25/01/2011 - 19:01
Blythman wrote:
A personal attack that was highly offensive, for which I thought an apology was due.
Dead right I did.
How do you think an innocent photographer feels when confronted with such personal attacks for taking pictures in a public place? You never answered that. wait, yes you did answer, in a way...Don wrote:
The bottom line for me, on this topic is this:
I took one persons position on this subject, twisted things around, and made a hypothetical example, consisting of untrue accusation based on flawed interpretations, and suggested restricting or taking away his rights...
The exact same thing some people who are harassing photographers in public places are doing...
It was not something I'd expect anybody to believe was true, just something I wanted the person explain how it felt... to be on the receiving end of....
The response was:
a) it got deleted by a moderator. It was a personal attack and offensive. Even if it was never meant to be believed by anybody.
b) the person on the receiving end felt an apology was owed.
Don, you mean you said I was obsessed with child abuse. Suggesting I had unhealthy leanings?The bottom line for me, on this topic is this:
I took one persons position on this subject, twisted things around, and made a hypothetical example, consisting of untrue accusation based on flawed interpretations, and suggested restricting or taking away his rights...
The exact same thing some people who are harassing photographers in public places are doing...
It was not something I'd expect anybody to believe was true, just something I wanted the person explain how it felt... to be on the receiving end of....
The response was:
a) it got deleted by a moderator. It was a personal attack and offensive. Even if it was never meant to be believed by anybody.
b) the person on the receiving end felt an apology was owed.
A personal attack that was highly offensive, for which I thought an apology was due.
Dead right I did.
"You have a big camera,there are kids in this park! you must be a pedophile!" is no different...
Comment by Don posted on Photographing children at 24/01/2011 - 20:19
Pentaxophile wrote:
Your story just shows that the fear of paedophiles is far from rational.
try telling some of these same parents their kids are misbehaving and disruptive when you're at a restaurant or theatre or on a plane and see how much they will bend to respect the rights of others.. lol!SteveEveritt wrote:
We came across two young lads no more than 6-7 years old who had painstakingly dug a hole so deep only their heads were visible above ground.
Perhaps there is a paedophile sub-fetish where people are titillated by the disembodied heads of children? We came across two young lads no more than 6-7 years old who had painstakingly dug a hole so deep only their heads were visible above ground.
Your story just shows that the fear of paedophiles is far from rational.
Comment by Don posted on Photographing children at 24/01/2011 - 18:43
The bottom line for me, on this topic is this:
I took one persons position on this subject, twisted things around, and made a hypothetical example, consisting of untrue accusation based on flawed interpretations, and suggested restricting or taking away his rights...
The exact same thing some people who are harassing photographers in public places are doing...
It was not something I'd expect anybody to believe was true, just something I wanted the person explain how it felt... to be on the receiving end of....
The response was:
a) it got deleted by a moderator. It was a personal attack and offensive. Even if it was never meant to be believed by anybody.
b) the person on the receiving end felt an apology was owed.
So even a person who was defending the people that make false accusations, based on wrong assumptions in order to restrict other peoples rights, felt personally wronged, when somebody (even in the hypothetic sense) did it to them.
Wrong is wrong, case closed as far as I'm concerned.
When you take your kids out in public; running around hurling false, damaging, accusations, in order to take away the rights of others, is not your right, it is not good parenting, it is just wrong.
You don't want your kids photographed, just say so politely, and be prepared to take your kids elsewhere if the photographer doesn't comply.
You get asked not to photograph somebodies kids, be polite and move along, come back later when they're gone, unless you are there photographing your kids, in which case you need to politely inform them you and your family have as much right to be there as anybody else.
as for other public places, (as in not parks/places specifically intended for kids) stand your ground, they are free to leave.
My usual response is, "Since you are obviously aware I'm here taking photos, it won't be difficult for you to stay out of my way, and I'll happily wait for you to move out of my way so you aren't in the photo. Try to make sure you're not in it.."
I took one persons position on this subject, twisted things around, and made a hypothetical example, consisting of untrue accusation based on flawed interpretations, and suggested restricting or taking away his rights...
The exact same thing some people who are harassing photographers in public places are doing...
It was not something I'd expect anybody to believe was true, just something I wanted the person explain how it felt... to be on the receiving end of....
The response was:
a) it got deleted by a moderator. It was a personal attack and offensive. Even if it was never meant to be believed by anybody.
b) the person on the receiving end felt an apology was owed.
So even a person who was defending the people that make false accusations, based on wrong assumptions in order to restrict other peoples rights, felt personally wronged, when somebody (even in the hypothetic sense) did it to them.
Wrong is wrong, case closed as far as I'm concerned.
When you take your kids out in public; running around hurling false, damaging, accusations, in order to take away the rights of others, is not your right, it is not good parenting, it is just wrong.
You don't want your kids photographed, just say so politely, and be prepared to take your kids elsewhere if the photographer doesn't comply.
You get asked not to photograph somebodies kids, be polite and move along, come back later when they're gone, unless you are there photographing your kids, in which case you need to politely inform them you and your family have as much right to be there as anybody else.
as for other public places, (as in not parks/places specifically intended for kids) stand your ground, they are free to leave.
My usual response is, "Since you are obviously aware I'm here taking photos, it won't be difficult for you to stay out of my way, and I'll happily wait for you to move out of my way so you aren't in the photo. Try to make sure you're not in it.."
Comment by Don posted on Photographing children at 24/01/2011 - 18:22
pentaxian450 wrote:
Am I ever glad I'm not in your country. I regularly take pictures of/including kids, and I never have problems. And, most of the time, I don't ask permission. Fortunately, Canada has not reached England's level of paranoia.
Manitoba is significantly more hillbilly and backwards than Montreal.Am I ever glad I'm not in your country. I regularly take pictures of/including kids, and I never have problems. And, most of the time, I don't ask permission. Fortunately, Canada has not reached England's level of paranoia.
Having moved here from a more civilized and educated area of this great country, I assure you, I look forward to the day when I can relocate and re-integrate into a more normal society.
it is a crap shoot out here as to whether a father gets harassed for photographing his own kids at play.
Comment by Don posted on Photographing children at 24/01/2011 - 17:09
I think you are going to find table lamps with flexible heads or the type with positional arms to be very effective... just a matter of finding the right wattage bulbs... cfls are cooler than others... something to keep in mind...
on a side note, I've seen some interesting works shining a laser through a drop of water to project an image onto a blank surface used instead of a microscope... could be worth googling around for ideas...
link
link
on a side note, I've seen some interesting works shining a laser through a drop of water to project an image onto a blank surface used instead of a microscope... could be worth googling around for ideas...
link
link
Comment by Don posted on K7 - Microscope lighting. at 24/01/2011 - 16:43
Blythman wrote:
Never mind. I'm moving on. This is my last post in this thread.
Johns decision to remove the post was fair. It is his job to keep things civil.Don wrote:
I think you got that point even if you choose to be disingenuous about what I was meaning.
I think I did get the point you were trying to make. So did John. And you thought its deletion was fair. Given your recognition that you were out of order, I though maybe there would be an apology. Even checked My Messages, in case you didn't want to back track in public. But instead I'm now being accused Blythman wrote:
Thanks for that Don. Not sure what you're trying to say, so I'll end this conversation with you
Don aside, I didn't start this thread. I made a single comment on another one
I was trying to say: if you twist things around enough, you can make a case to violate ANYBODIES rights, for the cause of "PROTECTING THE CHILDREN".Thanks for that Don. Not sure what you're trying to say, so I'll end this conversation with you
Don aside, I didn't start this thread. I made a single comment on another one
I think you got that point even if you choose to be disingenuous about what I was meaning.
Never mind. I'm moving on. This is my last post in this thread.
I'll not apologize for using blunt language to make a valid point. Well maybe I owe John an apology, the forum rules are clear.
Sorry John.
Comment by Don posted on Photographing children at 24/01/2011 - 16:18
Blythman wrote:
Thanks for that Don. Not sure what you're trying to say, so I'll end this conversation with you
Don aside, I didn't start this thread. I made a single comment on another one
I was trying to say: if you twist things around enough, you can make a case to violate ANYBODIES rights, for the cause of "PROTECTING THE CHILDREN".Thanks for that Don. Not sure what you're trying to say, so I'll end this conversation with you
Don aside, I didn't start this thread. I made a single comment on another one
I think you got that point even if you choose to be disingenuous about what I was saying.
you could hypothetically make an argument to ban two major religions, one for sex abuse scandals, the other for recruiting child soldiers and suicide bombers....
The actions of a few, make it ok to violate the rights of many?
Comment by Don posted on Photographing children at 24/01/2011 - 16:06
They are reviewing a Spotmatic next week
I pity the guy at Pop Photo that got the unenviable task of writing a review of he k-5.... I'm sure his job is on the line, and it won't be easy to word it in such a way that Canon doesn't pull thier advertising....
I see the headlines now "Pentax has announced there is a stain issue with the K-5"
Canon has no such stain issues.
so we are going to have to knock off 100 points from Pentax's overall rating to bring it closer to Canons score....